International Relations

Truth be told, the world-changing theater of international relations and foreign policy is so complex, multi-dimensional, and at odds with itself that a fully adequate understanding is always beyond reach. Although it may seem as if presidents, prime ministers, or autocrats just sit around in air conditioned luxury flicking their fingers to make things happen on the world stage, that is far from the actual reality. Always the drama of the unforeseen, the intangible, or the abnormal pokes its nose in, and even well-thought-out futures always look different than what the halls of power planned and sold to their publics. (I like to say that the future is known only to novelists.)

This is because many big, well-thought-out ideas are basic to the planning – to the analysis, construction, maintenance, shaping, or reshaping of international relations – and these ideas – outside the halls of power out in the world – intermingle and can act against each other even in the most equitable and dispassionate of bilateral relations, never mind in complicated multilateral relations, such as Washington and the capitals of the Muslim world have with one another. Think of these big ideas as a conceptual jigsaw puzzle that pictures the way the world looks internationally. These days, that puzzle’s largest ideas include, but are not limited to: the state; national interests; power and balance of power; culture and society; identity; norms; actors and agency; democracy; globalization; human rights; international law; international institutions; non-government organizations (NGOs); economic progress; multinational corporations; and international society.

Interpreting the big ideas

Now all of these big ideas have to be interpreted. And they are interpreted somewhat differently by different national leaders and their advisors, depending on the background theories being held. This is, in fact, the reason for the background theories – to interpret or explain ideas about the state, power, identity, society, etc. And it accounts for why one presidential administration’s foreign policy will diverge, sometimes widely, from another’s. For many decades in the West, especially in Washington, the most prominent theories have been versions of political ideologies such as realism, idealism, and neoconservatism, as well as schools of thought such as as IR constructivism and the English School (the latter chiefly in Britain). These theories, others too, such as their derivatives, influence how national leaders, foreign policy advisers and committees, and other decision makers in the theater give meaning to the puzzle pieces in order to picture the way they believe the international world looks and functions.

That, in turn, determines how international situations and events are analyzed and how policy prescriptions will be made and implemented. In other words, different interpretive grids (theoretical understandings) place different emphases on different conceptual pieces, thus one theory will underline the importance of some pieces over against others that get priority of place in another theory. When it comes time to analysis and decision-making, those differences in turn enormously direct and shape a particular policy. A neoconservative administration, for instance, would look at and respond to a major event of the Middle East quite unlike an administration following liberal internationalism.

Further, and this is also central to the theater of U.S. – Middle East relations – we have a variety of religious-political ideologies to consider. These ideologies of the Middle East states perform the same function for their leaders and advisers for understanding and prioritizing concerns about the state, national interest, identity, agency, human rights, etc., and what sorts of policies will be enacted. So it’s quite a mix, especially when including Russia, China, India… Well, you get the picture.

Having noted the hard fact of unpredictability inherent in foreign policy analyses and promises (I like to say that the future is known only to novelists), it is possible to approximate the kind of thinking that goes on in the halls of power, and that is the purpose of this section of the site – not to provide all the answers you may want, but to provide articles essential for understanding contemporary international relations and foreign policy decision making. Because of my current work, these articles will focus on U.S. – Middle East relations.

The process of understanding

I have chosen to start the process of understanding how international relations works with a short article on “IR theory” and longer articles on political realism and idealism and neoconservatism, and how various U.S. leaders have used them to analyze international relations and shape U.S. foreign policy. This material was adapted and developed for this site from chapters in the new book I’m writing. As always, your comments are welcome on the blogs for the articles. (I will put more such articles on the site, such as about religious-political ideologies, as time permits.)

Finally, these articles also pull duty as important background for anyone wishing to understand the wisdom-based alternative approaches to international relations and foreign policy that are being developed by The Wisdom Project and are the subject of the book. Why do I say that? For three reasons. One, if an alternative is to be offered, it really has to be an alternative, and to know if it is, an adequate awareness of reigning paradigms is first necessary. Also, the way leaders and their advisors really think about international relations and make foreign policy decisions is largely unknown to the people who elect them. And, three, the agency of wisdom always acts within the realities, the situations, in which the background ideologies have played a considerable role.